Dismissed

Maruthaiveeran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC25 Feb 2020WP(MD)/3301/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash revenue proceedings regarding property mutation. The Court held that pendency of a civil suit does not bar an enquiry under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry and pass an order on merits within six weeks, with sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

Maruthaiveeran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.02.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3301 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 and 1 of 0214

¶7

Maruthaiveeran

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶10

2.Periyasamy ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.A1.232/2012 dated 04.02.2013 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govidarajan

¶13

For R1 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, Additional Government Pleader. For R2 : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.A1.232/2012 dated 04.02.2013.

¶16

2.It is the case of the petitioner that his father purchased an extent of 751/2 cents in S.No.577/3A1 in M.Kalathur Village by a sale deed dated 29.07.1991 and that after purchasing the property on 29.07.1991, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interference from any one. Since the petitioner's father was in possession of 32 Ares, it is stated by the petitioner that he was given patta vide patta no.432. Patta now stands in the name of petitioner. The dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent is in respect to the 4 cents, which is stated to have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchased by the second respondent's father from the same owner one Saraswathiammal. The second respondent submitted

¶17

¶18

a petition before the first respondent on the ground that patta has been wrongly mutated in favour of the petitioner. Vide impugned notice, the Revenue Divisional Officer has only called the petitioner for an enquiry based on the representation of the second respondent.

¶19

3.The petitioner has stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry as the Act does not contemplate an enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer as original authority. The petitioner has filed a suit and the same is pending. Hence, it is submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer need not pass any order during the pendency of the suit. It is submitted that when dispute is pending before the competent civil Court any order passed by the first respondent will be premature.

¶20

4.This Court is unable to accept the same. This Court has already held that pendency to the suit cannot create any bar to stall the proceedings before authorities under Patta Pass Book Act in view of the bar under Section 14 of the Act. Merely because a suit filed by the petitioner is pending, the petitioner cannot approach this Court to stall of the enquiry, which is conducted under the provisions of Tamila Nadu Patta Passbook Act.

¶21

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that patta stands in the name of the petitioner. As against the entry pursuant to the order of the Thasildar, an appeal will lie before the first respondent under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act. Hence, this Court find that the petitioner is not right in contending that the first respondent has no power or jurisdiction to hold an enquiry. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed and the first respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate order on merits, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be given sufficient opportunity to participate in the enquiry. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy //

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

¶28

¶29

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.A.Arumugam, Advocate Sr.No.8550

¶31

+1cc to Mr.K.Govindarajan, Advocate SR.No.8513

¶32

AKM/08.05.2020 /3P-4C/

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.3301 of 2013

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Maruthaiveeran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthaiveeran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Rajapandian Vs the Sub Registrar

R.Rahumathulla Vs R. Anand

S.Raman Vs The District Revenue Officer

J.Arul Rajakani,S/O.M. Jeyaraj Vs the District Collector

Govindan at Chokar Vs the Thasildar

K.Gangadurai Vs the Tahsildar